linux

As Apple's Steve Jobs is announcing that they suddenly "want native third-party applications on the iPhone", something its users have been yearning to have ever since they started buying these phones (even if it meant hacking them), Steve justifies their prior resistance to this kind of openness by security threats. As he says, they are "trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once — provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc."

Now it is time consider what does "open" here really means and what exactly are these security threats he talks about stemming from. "Open" here does not mean "Open Source" and certainly not "Free Software". It means simply letting developers other than Apple write software for iPhone, be it proprietary or Freedomware, just the way Microsoft allows others to write third party software for Windows (which ends up boosting its perceived value quite a bit - no good third party applications equals a not very desirable operating system). Of course, just as Apple fears viruses on iPhone, Microsoft has been and continues to be ridden by them on Windows.

Have a look at LINA. It's a really clever idea - it solves the same problem as Java tries to solve: making all operating systems equivalent using a virtual machine so developers won't have to support multiple platforms. But there's a difference: LINA doesn't require the developer to work with different tools than he is used to, such as the Java compiler, because LINA is linux. Also, there will be a large amount of software available for it from the start, again because LINA is linux. And users will complain less, because the look and feel will be native (looks like windows on windows, like mac on mac).

After celebrations over Dell announcing that it will soon be selling GNU/Linux Ubuntu desktops and laptops we are seeing a bit of an uproar after, just a week later, Microsoft announced it's partnership with Dell akin to the one it made with Novell last November.

It is interesting how some people are equating this move to Microsoft showing us who is the boss in the industry. It is being said Microsoft *allowed* Dell to start selling Ubuntu under the condition that it also sells Novell SuSE GNU/Linux. I suppose the reason why Microsoft may care so much for pushing Novell sales is because this is where they are asserting their supposed patent rights. The stronger Novell's version of GNU/Linux is, the more people will, in some way, be admitting to Microsoft's patent rights, even if unwillingly. In fact even Novell isn't willing to admit that GNU/Linux contains any of the Microsoft patented code, but as long as the deal between them is valid, Microsoft can and will make such claims and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt on this basis.

As suspected, the criticizing position statement by Linux kernel developers on GPLv3 which calls for the termination of the GPLv3 process is stirring the pot. Free Software foundation has issued a response claiming that the recent discussion brought some misleading information and tried to address and clarify it. Soon after Linus Torvalds released a statement of his own, this time taking a more positive approach by praising GPLv2 with an attitude of "not caring so much about why the GPLv3 is worse, but a much more positive 'Why the GPLv2 is _better_".

I would have to applaud this attempt at putting a positive spin on the discussion. At the very least it disperses a view that could potentially develop among outsiders not knowing too much about GPL and not involved in the discussion, that when questioning GPLv3, it is whole GPL (no matter the version) which is being brought in question.

A group of important Linux kernel developers have recently published a position statement on GPLv3, as reported by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in a story with a rather alarmist title: "GPLv3 could kill open source, top Linux dev's warn". In truth, the goal is exactly and essentially just the opposite. I have little doubt that the statement will deepen the controversy already present around the new version of the most popular Free Software license, especially since Linus Torvalds criticized the license on a number of occassions before.

Unfortunately, the statement doesn't strike me as very constructive in regards to the GPLv3 development process. Indeed, it calls for its termination under a rather drastic prediction of what should happen otherwise, " balkanization, which will be manifested by distributions being forced to fork various packages in order to get consistent licenses, has the potential to inflict massive collateral damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardize the very utility and survival of Open Source."